CA Unpub Decisions

Plaintiffs and appellants appeal a judgment of nonsuit in favor of defendant and respondent LaPuente Valley Water District (LaPuente). Appellants claim on appeal (1) good cause existed to vacate the trial date for a review to determine whether the case should be designated as a long cause, complex case and (2) good cause existed for a continuance of the trial date. The trial court declined to continue the trial and since plaintiffs had not designated a single expert and failed to present any case at all, the case was dismissed. Court affirm.

Plaintiff and appellant Daunne Monique Land (plaintiff) appeals from an adverse judgment on her claim for violation of her civil rights against defendants and respondents Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Earl Perkins, Deborah Gayle, Sean Gaston, Waymon Hobdy, Mattie Sanders, Ben Fuller, Jocelyn Lofton, Carol Watts and Gladys Storey (collectively, defendants).[1] Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that defendants violated her First Amendment and other civil rights by harassing her because of her decision not to participate in a uniform policy instituted at her middle school. The trial court granted defendants motion for nonsuit as to plaintiffs claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (section 1983)the only claim that plaintiff has appealedconcluding that plaintiff failed to establish that the uniform policy was unconstitutional or that any of the defendants had otherwise violated plaintiffs rights. Court affirm.

Appellant Raul Perez challenges a judgment of dissolution of marriage, insofar as it resolves the community estates interests in the marital residence and other items of property, and denies Perezs request for spousal support. Court affirm.

Sung P. Park appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of two counts of first degree burglary, counts 1 and 4 (Pen. Code, 459), three counts of first degree robbery, counts 2, 5 and 6 (Pen. Code, 211), three counts of false imprisonment by violence, counts 3, 7 and 8 (Pen. Code, 236), and criminal threats, count 9 (Pen. Code, 422). The allegations with reference to counts 1, 2 and 3 that appellant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) were found not true. After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. The judgment is affirmed.

Phillip Hart appeals from a judgment entered following his no contest plea to possession of cocaine base for sale, count 2 (Health & Saf. Code, 11351.5), his admission that he suffered one prior conviction within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a) and a finding by the court[1] that he suffered a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 1170.12, subds. (a) - (d) and 667, subds. (b) - (i)). Pursuant to his negotiated plea, he was sentenced in the instant case to prison for eleven years, consisting of the middle term of four years, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, plus three years pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a). As part of the negotiated plea, the remaining counts and enhancements were dismissed.
Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)

Edwin Makee Moss shot Darryl Thompson three times in the back of the head, killing him. Moss appeals his conviction, by jury, of first degree murder and personally discharging a firearm in the commission of that crime. (Pen. Code, 187, 189, 12022.53, subd. (b)-(d).)[1]The trial court sentenced appellant to a term in state prison of 50 years to life. Appellant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective because counsel did not object to evidence of his association with a street gang, that the prosecutor committed misconduct by referring to his gang associations, and that the trial court erred when it failed sua sponte to instruct the jury on heat of passion manslaughter. He contends these errors cumulated to his prejudice. Court affirm.

Kennedy Wright appeals his conviction by jury of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, 245, subd. (a)(2))[1]and making a criminal threat ( 422) with special findings that he personally inflicted great bodily injury ( 12022.7) and personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a) and section 12022.53, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced appellant to eight years state prison.
Court direct the trial court to correct the March 23, 2006 minute order to reflect that the true finding on the section 12022.53 firearm enhancement is a legal nullity and stricken as surplusage. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The record establishes that on Monday, September 26, 2005, Robert A. Curry, Jr. left his Long Beach home in the early afternoon for a business trip. He locked his house except the door that led from the house into the garage and a sliding glass window off the dinette area which was open about three or four inches. When Mr. Curry returned to his home on Wednesday, cabinets and dresser drawers were open. Televisions were ripped off the walls and missing. The dinette window was wide open as was the door from the kitchen to the patio. Stereo equipment had been removed from his home and stacked on the patio. Another television was partially out of its cabinet but still intact. Seven or eight watches were missing from a box in Mr. Currys bedroom.
The judgment is affirmed.

Guillermo Ochoa appeals from judgments entered following an order revoking probation[1]and following a jury trial in which he was convicted of misdemeanor assault.[2] (Pen. Code, 240.) He was sentenced to the low term of two years in prison upon revocation of probation and 90 days in jail for the assault conviction with credit for time served.
Court have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgments entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112.)
The judgments are affirmed.

Omar Hasson Shahid appeals from the judgment entered following his no contest pleas to cohabitant abuse (Pen. Code, 273.5, subd. (a)), marijuana sales (Health & Saf. Code, 11360, subd. (a)), and drunk driving (Veh. Code., 23152, subds. (a) & (b)) in two separate cases where he was placed on probation, subject to various conditions. Among other conditions, appellant was required to obey all laws, and abstain from alcohol and drug use. After several probation violation proceedings in which the court reinstated probation, the court revoked appellant's probation and sentenced him to three years in state prison, including a two year low term for cohabitant abuse and a consecutive one year sentence for marijuana sales. Court affirm.

Deserie Mary Molina appeals from the judgment entered following the trial court's termination of drug treatment probation granted pursuant to Penal Code section 1210.1. Appellant contends that she was denied due process of law because she never admitted a probation violation and no evidence of a violation was presented. Court disagree and affirm.

Defendant and appellant David Franco (defendant) set fire to the interior of a parked motor home that was occupied by two women who were strangers to him. He was charged with and convicted on five felony counts, including two counts of attempted premeditated murder, following a court trial.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erroneously applied the transferred intent doctrine to the two attempted murder counts. He further contends that the trial court applied an incorrect standard in determining his insanity defense and that the trial courts sanity finding was not supported by substantial evidence.
Court therefore affirm the judgment.

This appeal is from the trial courts denial of an application for preliminary injunction sought by Harbor Furniture Manufacturing, Inc., a closely held family corporation, being operated under a subchapter S election for income tax purposes, in the face of a threat to have the corporations tax status changed to a C corporation by two family members constituting the majority shareholders but who occupy minority voting status in the corporation. Plaintiff and appellant, Harbor Furniture Manufacturing, Inc. will be referred to herein as Harbor. Defendants and respondents, Candi Tuttleton and Ann Stuparich are the two family members constituting the majority shareholders who, combined, own a slight majority of the shares of Harbor and be referred to hereafter as majority shareholders unless context dictates otherwise. Occasionally the family members be referred to herein by their first names, not out of disrespect, but for convenience in describing the longstanding family friction.
Court affirm the decision of the trial court.

Arthur Kenneth Osbourn was sentenced to 34 years state prison after pleading guilty to two counts of attempted murder (counts 1 & 2; Pen. Code, 664/187, subd. (a)) and one count of making terrorist threats (count 3; 422), and admitting that he personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm in the commission of the offenses ( 12022.5, subd. (a)(1); 12022.53, subd. (c)). He appeals, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a nine-year consecutive sentence on count 2 for attempted murder and intentional discharge of a firearm. Court affirm.